Trumplethinskin Cancels London Visit, Blaming Obama With A Lie

Why is anyone surprised Trump cancelled his visit? I wouldn't come here either if I was him.
There would be massive protests by the left for sure and it would out Trump Trump in all the news that outlets. Who wants that publicity, the
narrative being 'Britain hates the US president"

I'm glad he's avoiding it to be honest. I'd be pretty embarrassed that we'd dissed the leader of our biggest investor, or rather the vocal minority on
the left stole the headlines to make it seem that way.

I believe most people in the UK couldn't give a toss if he visited but unfortunately that silent majority doesn't make the news.

That just is not accurate. Labour has some members of parliament who are not fans of the idea of leaving the EU, thats true. But the insistence is
that they respect the will of their constituents, and indeed respect the will of the people, something that Corbyn takes very seriously indeed. What
the irrelevant specks to the right of the Labour party think about it, being as they are, more concerned with their wallets than the people or the
country, is entirely moot in the face of how they are instructed to comport themselves by the people, and by the leadership of the party they are
members of.

Its not FULL of Remainers. It has some. It also has those who are willing to give the people the lead on this, and follow their directive, which
makes them actually acceptable candidates for high office, people who know their place, relative to the collective will of the electorate. That is
something to be very pleased about. Its been some time since this important value, was given the pride of place it deserves.

With respect, just because you fail to see it, does not mean it is not there.

People like Jeremy Corbyn are only where they are today, because they have paid close attention to what the people ask of them, and as the man who
seeks to lead the country, Corbyn, regardless of his membership of this working group, will and always has sought to represent the people in a manner
accordant with their needs and wishes, as he damned well ought to, and will continue to if his record is anything to go by.

Corbyn is a cockwomble who would jeopardise relations with the US by banning Trump from a visit.
We've hosted much worse, and Corbyn was happy enough dealing with Northern Irish terrorists back in the day, he just jumps on whatever left wing
bandwagon is trending on social media.
I wouldn't trust him to mind my pint while I had a piss let alone minding the nation.

I don't want a leader who has power over his party. I want a leader whose only interest is the people, with party members who are elected on the same
basis, and that is what we will get, if we get a Labour government. A party prepared to represent the people first, and everything else a distant
last.

It is the US which jeopardises relations with us, by having a boor and a charlatan at its helm, whose comments and actions cannot be justified in the
minds of morally sound individuals, which disqualifies him from being worthy of a state visit. So you got that all backwards. Its not Corbyn being
unwilling, but Trump being unacceptable that causes the problem here.

And as for Corbyn's actions regarding the Northern Irish issue, he was, at the time, the only person in politics, willing to actually engage in
dialogue for the purpose of bringing the bloodshed to a close, well ahead of his time in that regard. He was only in the situation of having to go out
on a limb in that fashion, because the government of the day was too pig ignorant and bullheaded, to make decisions about who to talk to, based on how
much good could be done by the doing of it, rather than the metric they eventually used to make those choices, to whit, how much face they would lose
in the public eye at the time by discussing the issues with their opposite numbers.

If more people during that period, had been willing to enter productive dialogue with the Northern Irish, we could have seen a faster resolution to
the troubles than was eventually the case, especially if the actual government had been willing to involve themselves in that manner. That Corbyn was
willing at that stage to enter dialogue, rather than continue the tit for tat violence of the period, shows that he was, even then, one of the most
proactive, forward thinking and humanitarian politicians of the day. Understand this, he was the only person in the political sphere, who considered
the human lives at stake, worth more than the loss of face that a government might receive by entering dialogue, which is a mark of strength, not
weakness. It shows that his understanding of the human cost of continuing hostilities, was greater than the understanding of the leaders of the day.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.